golol

Has nothing to do with AI-hype. Anyone who is interested in Lambda calculus should find his work intriguing.

It is mean for the last point I mentioned: Taelin is very transpparent about his work which makes it easy to attack him. And what for? This post is not even a proper criticism of Bend 2, it is just trying to paint some story that Taelim is a vinecoder who does not know what he is doing, based on no evidence. If he was not transparent it would not even be known that LLMs have been used.

I find this to be a mean and misguided post. To suggest that Victor Taelin does not know about formal methods. As I understand, he is trying to do something genuinely new and interesting. And he is transparent about his work, which he then gets hounded for. A shame.

It doesn't really make sense what he said. Everyone expects N-S to have blow-up. If you are going to try to show blow-up, C and D are strictly easier than A and B. So Tristan was not clear about what detail of "route" he is talking about, because what he literally said can not be it.

I just meant that choosing the same 2 routes out of 4 would not at all be a great coincidence without knowing what Tristan was working on.

>"It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement."

To be honest, he was referring to routes (c) and (d) to the millenium problem, as far as I understand no more specific. Which is 2/4 routes.

This is oversimplifying it. Read the metr report on the huggingface incident.

I just had thw thought: aren't parentheses just punctuation denoting an inline footnote?

Cute, but for strange words clicking the longest explanation turned out to be akmost always rhe correct one :)

Read the declaration. The article misrepresents it imo. It is not strongly opinionated.

Yes what I was saying is what I believe about the goalposts.

I think based on the class of problem that RH is an independence result is not something that "really happens".

I did not have the impression the proof uses a surprising and novel contribution of fields. I think the proof uses standard application techniques of algebraic number theory towards discrete geometry. If you have a quote substantiating what you said I would be curious.

I know these articles write that it used deep algebraic number theory techniques, which is true, but it may also just be the standard in the field.

You are believing a very unlikely scenario. I think the reason is that you have been convinced of a claim which is unlikely and indeed not true. That is: >the model seems so capable at doing things like refuting fundamental theorems of mathematics

That is not true and a complete misrepresentation of recent progress of AI in math. It is therefore not necessary to believe the conspiracy theory you described in order to explain recent progress of AI in math.